Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 391 | control, N = 191 | treatment, N = 201 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 39 | 50.16 ± 13.09 (25 - 72) | 49.31 ± 13.19 (25 - 72) | 50.98 ± 13.28 (32 - 72) | 0.696 |
gender | 39 | 0.257 | |||
f | 26 (67%) | 11 (58%) | 15 (75%) | ||
m | 13 (33%) | 8 (42%) | 5 (25%) | ||
occupation | 39 | 0.946 | |||
full_time | 5 (13%) | 3 (16%) | 2 (10%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
other | 2 (5.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | ||
part_time | 6 (15%) | 4 (21%) | 2 (10%) | ||
retired | 11 (28%) | 5 (26%) | 6 (30%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
unemploy | 9 (23%) | 4 (21%) | 5 (25%) | ||
marital | 39 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (13%) | 3 (16%) | 2 (10%) | ||
married | 7 (18%) | 3 (16%) | 4 (20%) | ||
none | 21 (54%) | 10 (53%) | 11 (55%) | ||
seperation | 3 (7.7%) | 2 (11%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
widow | 3 (7.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10%) | ||
edu | 39 | 0.479 | |||
bachelor | 12 (31%) | 5 (26%) | 7 (35%) | ||
diploma | 7 (18%) | 5 (26%) | 2 (10%) | ||
hd_ad | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (10%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (10%) | ||
primary | 4 (10%) | 1 (5.3%) | 3 (15%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 2 (5.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 8 (21%) | 5 (26%) | 3 (15%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
fam_income | 39 | 0.863 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (7.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10%) | ||
12001_14000 | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (10%) | 1 (5.3%) | 3 (15%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 7 (18%) | 5 (26%) | 2 (10%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (13%) | 2 (11%) | 3 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 6 (15%) | 3 (16%) | 3 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 3 (7.7%) | 2 (11%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (7.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (10%) | 1 (5.3%) | 3 (15%) | ||
medication | 39 | 34 (87%) | 16 (84%) | 18 (90%) | 0.661 |
onset_duration | 39 | 16.70 ± 12.83 (0 - 56) | 17.78 ± 15.00 (1 - 56) | 15.68 ± 10.66 (0 - 35) | 0.616 |
onset_age | 39 | 33.46 ± 12.66 (15 - 62) | 31.53 ± 11.38 (16 - 55) | 35.30 ± 13.82 (15 - 62) | 0.360 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 391 | control, N = 191 | treatment, N = 201 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 39 | 3.54 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.58 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.50 ± 1.28 (1 - 5) | 0.845 |
recovery_stage_b | 39 | 18.41 ± 2.74 (9 - 23) | 18.53 ± 3.03 (9 - 23) | 18.30 ± 2.52 (14 - 23) | 0.800 |
ras_confidence | 39 | 31.28 ± 4.45 (22 - 40) | 31.00 ± 3.86 (26 - 40) | 31.55 ± 5.03 (22 - 39) | 0.705 |
ras_willingness | 39 | 12.33 ± 2.04 (7 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.71 (9 - 15) | 12.15 ± 2.35 (7 - 15) | 0.572 |
ras_goal | 39 | 17.92 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 18.11 ± 2.73 (13 - 23) | 17.75 ± 3.29 (12 - 24) | 0.716 |
ras_reliance | 39 | 13.46 ± 3.21 (8 - 20) | 13.42 ± 2.89 (8 - 18) | 13.50 ± 3.56 (8 - 20) | 0.940 |
ras_domination | 39 | 10.26 ± 2.52 (3 - 15) | 11.11 ± 1.73 (8 - 15) | 9.45 ± 2.91 (3 - 14) | 0.039 |
symptom | 39 | 29.69 ± 10.67 (14 - 56) | 28.53 ± 9.00 (14 - 45) | 30.80 ± 12.18 (15 - 56) | 0.513 |
slof_work | 39 | 23.23 ± 5.09 (10 - 30) | 24.05 ± 4.60 (15 - 30) | 22.45 ± 5.52 (10 - 30) | 0.332 |
slof_relationship | 39 | 26.82 ± 5.74 (11 - 35) | 27.84 ± 5.33 (19 - 35) | 25.85 ± 6.08 (11 - 35) | 0.285 |
satisfaction | 39 | 21.62 ± 6.99 (5 - 30) | 20.47 ± 6.74 (5 - 29) | 22.70 ± 7.23 (5 - 30) | 0.327 |
mhc_emotional | 39 | 11.85 ± 3.48 (4 - 18) | 11.42 ± 2.87 (7 - 17) | 12.25 ± 4.01 (4 - 18) | 0.465 |
mhc_social | 39 | 15.26 ± 4.89 (6 - 25) | 15.68 ± 4.50 (8 - 25) | 14.85 ± 5.32 (6 - 23) | 0.601 |
mhc_psychological | 39 | 23.08 ± 5.89 (6 - 36) | 22.63 ± 5.45 (13 - 33) | 23.50 ± 6.39 (6 - 36) | 0.651 |
resilisnce | 39 | 17.23 ± 4.80 (6 - 25) | 17.16 ± 4.48 (6 - 24) | 17.30 ± 5.20 (7 - 25) | 0.928 |
social_provision | 39 | 13.74 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 13.79 ± 2.80 (10 - 20) | 13.70 ± 3.63 (5 - 19) | 0.932 |
els_value_living | 39 | 17.38 ± 3.02 (5 - 23) | 17.26 ± 1.82 (13 - 20) | 17.50 ± 3.89 (5 - 23) | 0.810 |
els_life_fulfill | 39 | 13.26 ± 3.38 (4 - 18) | 12.58 ± 3.31 (5 - 17) | 13.90 ± 3.40 (4 - 18) | 0.227 |
els | 39 | 30.64 ± 5.70 (9 - 40) | 29.84 ± 4.14 (22 - 36) | 31.40 ± 6.89 (9 - 40) | 0.400 |
social_connect | 39 | 26.31 ± 10.41 (8 - 48) | 26.00 ± 9.10 (8 - 45) | 26.60 ± 11.75 (8 - 48) | 0.860 |
shs_agency | 39 | 14.46 ± 4.76 (3 - 20) | 14.42 ± 4.03 (3 - 20) | 14.50 ± 5.47 (3 - 20) | 0.960 |
shs_pathway | 39 | 16.92 ± 3.69 (4 - 22) | 16.63 ± 2.91 (9 - 21) | 17.20 ± 4.37 (4 - 22) | 0.637 |
shs | 39 | 31.38 ± 7.78 (7 - 42) | 31.05 ± 6.51 (16 - 41) | 31.70 ± 8.99 (7 - 42) | 0.799 |
esteem | 39 | 12.62 ± 1.16 (10 - 15) | 12.84 ± 0.90 (11 - 14) | 12.40 ± 1.35 (10 - 15) | 0.240 |
mlq_search | 39 | 15.51 ± 3.19 (3 - 21) | 15.79 ± 2.62 (12 - 21) | 15.25 ± 3.71 (3 - 20) | 0.605 |
mlq_presence | 39 | 13.90 ± 4.00 (3 - 21) | 14.79 ± 2.20 (12 - 19) | 13.05 ± 5.08 (3 - 21) | 0.178 |
mlq | 39 | 29.41 ± 6.47 (6 - 41) | 30.58 ± 4.59 (25 - 40) | 28.30 ± 7.81 (6 - 41) | 0.277 |
empower | 39 | 20.26 ± 4.28 (6 - 28) | 20.74 ± 3.07 (14 - 24) | 19.80 ± 5.22 (6 - 28) | 0.502 |
ismi_resistance | 39 | 15.08 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 15.16 ± 2.17 (12 - 19) | 15.00 ± 3.46 (5 - 20) | 0.866 |
ismi_discrimation | 39 | 11.18 ± 3.31 (5 - 19) | 12.11 ± 3.14 (5 - 17) | 10.30 ± 3.29 (5 - 19) | 0.089 |
sss_affective | 39 | 9.49 ± 4.32 (3 - 18) | 9.84 ± 3.62 (3 - 15) | 9.15 ± 4.97 (3 - 18) | 0.624 |
sss_behavior | 39 | 9.62 ± 4.53 (3 - 18) | 10.32 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 8.95 ± 4.63 (3 - 18) | 0.354 |
sss_cognitive | 39 | 7.95 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 7.58 ± 3.81 (3 - 15) | 8.30 ± 4.49 (3 - 18) | 0.592 |
sss | 39 | 27.05 ± 12.07 (9 - 54) | 27.74 ± 10.42 (9 - 44) | 26.40 ± 13.69 (9 - 54) | 0.734 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.58 | 0.278 | 3.03, 4.12 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.079 | 0.389 | -0.841, 0.683 | 0.840 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.145 | 0.468 | -0.773, 1.06 | 0.768 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.855 | 0.805 | -0.724, 2.43 | 0.331 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.5 | 0.632 | 17.3, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.226 | 0.883 | -1.96, 1.50 | 0.799 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.632 | 0.542 | -1.69, 0.430 | 0.307 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.808 | 0.937 | -1.03, 2.64 | 0.436 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 31.0 | 1.026 | 29.0, 33.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.550 | 1.433 | -2.26, 3.36 | 0.703 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.221 | 0.758 | -1.71, 1.26 | 0.785 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.95 | 1.311 | -0.616, 4.52 | 0.209 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.465 | 11.6, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.376 | 0.649 | -1.65, 0.895 | 0.565 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.869 | 0.650 | -2.14, 0.405 | 0.242 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.901 | 1.121 | -1.30, 3.10 | 0.459 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 18.1 | 0.683 | 16.8, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.355 | 0.954 | -2.22, 1.51 | 0.712 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.311 | 0.654 | -1.59, 0.971 | 0.657 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.063 | 1.131 | -2.28, 2.15 | 0.958 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.747 | 12.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.079 | 1.043 | -1.97, 2.12 | 0.940 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.031 | 0.690 | -1.32, 1.38 | 0.966 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.923 | 1.194 | -1.42, 3.26 | 0.479 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.557 | 10.0, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.66 | 0.778 | -3.18, -0.131 | 0.040 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.79 | 1.096 | -3.94, 0.356 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.33 | 1.876 | -0.348, 7.01 | 0.107 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.107 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 2.464 | 23.7, 33.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 3.440 | -4.47, 9.02 | 0.513 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -2.84 | 1.749 | -6.27, 0.588 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.05 | 3.027 | -2.88, 8.99 | 0.369 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 24.1 | 1.156 | 21.8, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.60 | 1.615 | -4.77, 1.56 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.70 | 0.957 | -3.57, 0.178 | 0.150 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.00 | 1.656 | -1.25, 5.24 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.297 | 25.3, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.99 | 1.812 | -5.54, 1.56 | 0.279 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -3.34 | 1.328 | -5.94, -0.735 | 0.060 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 5.03 | 2.295 | 0.530, 9.53 | 0.087 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 1.602 | 17.3, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.23 | 2.236 | -2.16, 6.61 | 0.326 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.07 | 1.704 | -0.274, 6.41 | 0.145 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.65 | 2.945 | -7.42, 4.12 | 0.604 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.4 | 0.785 | 9.88, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.829 | 1.096 | -1.32, 2.98 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 1.882 | -2.61, 4.77 | 0.570 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.17 | 3.159 | -3.02, 9.36 | 0.321 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.086 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 1.229 | 13.3, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.834 | 1.716 | -4.20, 2.53 | 0.630 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.27 | 2.582 | -1.79, 8.33 | 0.222 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -6.13 | 4.404 | -14.8, 2.50 | 0.181 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.061 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 22.6 | 1.369 | 19.9, 25.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.868 | 1.912 | -2.88, 4.62 | 0.652 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.69 | 3.150 | -4.48, 7.87 | 0.598 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.54 | 5.331 | -13.0, 7.91 | 0.639 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 1.116 | 15.0, 19.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.142 | 1.559 | -2.91, 3.20 | 0.928 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.310 | 0.908 | -1.47, 2.09 | 0.750 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.40 | 1.571 | -6.48, -0.322 | 0.095 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.738 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.089 | 1.030 | -2.11, 1.93 | 0.931 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.190 | 0.649 | -1.46, 1.08 | 0.784 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.26 | 1.122 | -0.941, 3.46 | 0.324 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.700 | 15.9, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.237 | 0.978 | -1.68, 2.15 | 0.810 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.245 | 0.216 | -0.669, 0.179 | 0.320 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.740 | 0.374 | -1.47, -0.006 | 0.119 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.766 | 11.1, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.32 | 1.070 | -0.776, 3.42 | 0.225 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.768 | 0.915 | -1.03, 2.56 | 0.448 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.851 | 1.580 | -3.95, 2.25 | 0.618 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.312 | 27.3, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.56 | 1.832 | -2.03, 5.15 | 0.401 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.970 | -1.52, 2.28 | 0.717 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.64 | 1.678 | -4.92, 1.65 | 0.383 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.0 | 2.430 | 21.2, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.600 | 3.393 | -6.05, 7.25 | 0.861 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 4.59 | 1.136 | 2.37, 6.82 | 0.015 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.335 | 1.966 | -3.52, 4.19 | 0.873 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 1.105 | 12.3, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.079 | 1.543 | -2.95, 3.10 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.54 | 0.901 | 0.776, 4.31 | 0.048 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.29 | 1.558 | -5.34, 0.764 | 0.215 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.846 | 15.0, 18.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.568 | 1.182 | -1.75, 2.88 | 0.633 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.954 | -0.852, 2.89 | 0.347 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.05 | 1.647 | -4.28, 2.18 | 0.558 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 31.1 | 1.805 | 27.5, 34.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.647 | 2.520 | -4.29, 5.59 | 0.799 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.51 | 0.685 | 2.17, 4.85 | 0.007 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.91 | 1.185 | -6.23, -1.58 | 0.030 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.263 | 12.3, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.442 | 0.367 | -1.16, 0.277 | 0.235 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.158 | 0.630 | -1.08, 1.39 | 0.803 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.058 | 1.058 | -2.13, 2.02 | 0.957 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.737 | 14.3, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.539 | 1.029 | -2.56, 1.48 | 0.603 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.239 | 1.125 | -1.97, 2.44 | 0.841 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.395 | 1.937 | -4.19, 3.40 | 0.847 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.905 | 13.0, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.74 | 1.264 | -4.22, 0.738 | 0.177 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.137 | 0.837 | -1.78, 1.50 | 0.878 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.04 | 1.448 | -3.88, 1.80 | 0.512 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.055 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 30.6 | 1.476 | 27.7, 33.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.28 | 2.061 | -6.32, 1.76 | 0.276 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.216 | 1.880 | -3.47, 3.90 | 0.914 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.35 | 3.245 | -7.71, 5.01 | 0.697 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.7 | 0.985 | 18.8, 22.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.937 | 1.375 | -3.63, 1.76 | 0.500 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.457 | 0.559 | -1.55, 0.638 | 0.460 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.43 | 0.967 | -3.33, 0.462 | 0.212 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.638 | 13.9, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.158 | 0.892 | -1.91, 1.59 | 0.860 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.825 | 1.411 | -3.59, 1.94 | 0.589 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.40 | 2.399 | -3.30, 6.10 | 0.584 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.720 | 10.7, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.81 | 1.006 | -3.78, 0.166 | 0.081 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.05 | 1.354 | -3.70, 1.61 | 0.501 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.412 | 2.321 | -4.14, 4.96 | 0.871 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.077 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.84 | 1.002 | 7.88, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.692 | 1.399 | -3.43, 2.05 | 0.624 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.197 | 0.415 | -1.01, 0.616 | 0.659 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.09 | 0.718 | -0.313, 2.50 | 0.202 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 1.037 | 8.28, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.37 | 1.449 | -4.21, 1.47 | 0.352 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.678 | 0.545 | -1.75, 0.390 | 0.282 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.55 | 0.944 | -0.303, 3.40 | 0.177 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.58 | 0.952 | 5.71, 9.44 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.721 | 1.329 | -1.88, 3.33 | 0.591 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.48 | 1.386 | -0.241, 5.19 | 0.150 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.79 | 2.388 | -7.47, 1.89 | 0.307 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 2.796 | 22.3, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.34 | 3.904 | -8.99, 6.32 | 0.734 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.24 | 1.552 | -1.80, 4.28 | 0.470 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.821 | 2.687 | -4.45, 6.09 | 0.775 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.58 (95% CI [3.03, 4.12], t(39) = 12.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.68], t(39) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.06], t(39) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.43], t(39) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.53 (95% CI [17.29, 19.77], t(39) = 29.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.50], t(39) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.43], t(39) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.64], t(39) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [28.99, 33.01], t(39) = 30.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.26, 3.36], t(39) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.26], t(39) = -0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-0.62, 4.52], t(39) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.62, 13.44], t(39) = 26.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.90], t(39) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.41], t(39) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.30, 3.10], t(39) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.11 (95% CI [16.77, 19.44], t(39) = 26.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.22, 1.51], t(39) = -0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.97], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.15], t(39) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.42 (95% CI [11.96, 14.89], t(39) = 17.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.12], t(39) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.38], t(39) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 9.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.26], t(39) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.11 (95% CI [10.01, 12.20], t(39) = 19.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.13], t(39) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, -0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.94, 0.36], t(39) = -1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.33, 95% CI [-0.35, 7.01], t(39) = 1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [23.70, 33.36], t(39) = 11.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-4.47, 9.02], t(39) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.84, 95% CI [-6.27, 0.59], t(39) = -1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.05, 95% CI [-2.88, 8.99], t(39) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.05 (95% CI [21.79, 26.32], t(39) = 20.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.56], t(39) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.18], t(39) = -1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.24], t(39) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.30, 30.38], t(39) = 21.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.99, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.56], t(39) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.34, 95% CI [-5.94, -0.73], t(39) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.07, -0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 5.03, 95% CI [0.53, 9.53], t(39) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.10, 1.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [17.33, 23.61], t(39) = 12.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-2.16, 6.61], t(39) = 1.00, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.97])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 6.41], t(39) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.94])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-7.42, 4.12], t(39) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.42 (95% CI [9.88, 12.96], t(39) = 14.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.98], t(39) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-2.61, 4.77], t(39) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.17, 95% CI [-3.02, 9.36], t(39) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.28, 18.09], t(39) = 12.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-4.20, 2.53], t(39) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.27, 95% CI [-1.79, 8.33], t(39) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.13, 95% CI [-14.77, 2.50], t(39) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.71, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.18) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [19.95, 25.32], t(39) = 16.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-2.88, 4.62], t(39) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.80])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-4.48, 7.87], t(39) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.54, 95% CI [-12.99, 7.91], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.634; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [14.97, 19.35], t(39) = 15.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.91, 3.20], t(39) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.09], t(39) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.40, 95% CI [-6.48, -0.32], t(39) = -2.16, p = 0.030; Std. beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.41, -0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.79 (95% CI [12.34, 15.24], t(39) = 18.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.93], t(39) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.08], t(39) = -0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.94, 3.46], t(39) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.99) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [15.89, 18.64], t(39) = 24.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.15], t(39) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.18], t(39) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.47, -6.09e-03], t(39) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, -2.08e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [11.08, 14.08], t(39) = 16.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.42], t(39) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.56], t(39) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.95, 2.25], t(39) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.84 (95% CI [27.27, 32.41], t(39) = 22.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-2.03, 5.15], t(39) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.28], t(39) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.64, 95% CI [-4.92, 1.65], t(39) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.00 (95% CI [21.24, 30.76], t(39) = 10.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-6.05, 7.25], t(39) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.59, 95% CI [2.37, 6.82], t(39) = 4.04, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.23, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-3.52, 4.19], t(39) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [12.26, 16.59], t(39) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.10], t(39) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.54, 95% CI [0.78, 4.31], t(39) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.17, 0.93])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.29, 95% CI [-5.34, 0.76], t(39) = -1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.63 (95% CI [14.97, 18.29], t(39) = 19.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.88], t(39) = 0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.89], t(39) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.82])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-4.28, 2.18], t(39) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.05 (95% CI [27.52, 34.59], t(39) = 17.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.29, 5.59], t(39) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.51, 95% CI [2.17, 4.85], t(39) = 5.13, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.29, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.91, 95% CI [-6.23, -1.58], t(39) = -3.30, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.84 (95% CI [12.33, 13.36], t(39) = 48.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.28], t(39) = -1.20, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.39], t(39) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.13, 2.02], t(39) = -0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.35, 17.23], t(39) = 21.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.48], t(39) = -0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.44], t(39) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.79])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-4.19, 3.40], t(39) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.02, 16.56], t(39) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-4.22, 0.74], t(39) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.50], t(39) = -0.16, p = 0.870; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.88, 1.80], t(39) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.58 (95% CI [27.69, 33.47], t(39) = 20.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-6.32, 1.76], t(39) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.47, 3.90], t(39) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-7.71, 5.01], t(39) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.74 (95% CI [18.81, 22.67], t(39) = 21.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.63, 1.76], t(39) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.64], t(39) = -0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.46], t(39) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.91, 16.41], t(39) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.59], t(39) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.59, 1.94], t(39) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-3.30, 6.10], t(39) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.11 (95% CI [10.69, 13.52], t(39) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.78, 0.17], t(39) = -1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.61], t(39) = -0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-4.14, 4.96], t(39) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [7.88, 11.81], t(39) = 9.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.43, 2.05], t(39) = -0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.62], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.50], t(39) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [8.28, 12.35], t(39) = 9.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.21, 1.47], t(39) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.39], t(39) = -1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.30, 3.40], t(39) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.58 (95% CI [5.71, 9.44], t(39) = 7.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.33], t(39) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.48, 95% CI [-0.24, 5.19], t(39) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.79, 95% CI [-7.47, 1.89], t(39) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [22.26, 33.22], t(39) = 9.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-8.99, 6.32], t(39) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.80, 4.28], t(39) = 0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-4.45, 6.09], t(39) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 146.146 | 151.566 | -70.073 | 140.146 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 149.363 | 160.203 | -68.682 | 137.363 | 2.783 | 3 | 0.426 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 211.066 | 216.486 | -102.533 | 205.066 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 215.226 | 226.066 | -101.613 | 203.226 | 1.839 | 3 | 0.606 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 254.398 | 259.818 | -124.199 | 248.398 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 257.012 | 267.852 | -122.506 | 245.012 | 3.385 | 3 | 0.336 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 189.639 | 195.059 | -91.820 | 183.639 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 193.298 | 204.138 | -90.649 | 181.298 | 2.342 | 3 | 0.505 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 218.180 | 223.600 | -106.090 | 212.180 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 223.491 | 234.331 | -105.745 | 211.491 | 0.689 | 3 | 0.876 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 226.452 | 231.872 | -110.226 | 220.452 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 231.159 | 241.999 | -109.580 | 219.159 | 1.293 | 3 | 0.731 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 214.301 | 219.721 | -104.150 | 208.301 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 213.581 | 224.421 | -100.790 | 201.581 | 6.720 | 3 | 0.081 |
symptom | null | 3 | 333.066 | 338.486 | -163.533 | 327.066 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 335.384 | 346.224 | -161.692 | 323.384 | 3.682 | 3 | 0.298 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 267.417 | 272.837 | -130.709 | 261.417 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 269.132 | 279.972 | -128.566 | 257.132 | 4.285 | 3 | 0.232 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 282.755 | 288.175 | -138.377 | 276.755 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 282.035 | 292.875 | -135.018 | 270.035 | 6.719 | 3 | 0.081 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 300.231 | 305.651 | -147.115 | 294.231 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 301.433 | 312.273 | -144.716 | 289.433 | 4.798 | 3 | 0.187 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 243.098 | 248.518 | -118.549 | 237.098 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 246.214 | 257.054 | -117.107 | 234.214 | 2.884 | 3 | 0.410 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 282.836 | 288.256 | -138.418 | 276.836 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 285.571 | 296.411 | -136.786 | 273.571 | 3.265 | 3 | 0.353 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 290.562 | 295.982 | -142.281 | 284.562 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 296.097 | 306.937 | -142.049 | 284.097 | 0.464 | 3 | 0.927 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 264.455 | 269.875 | -129.227 | 258.455 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 265.748 | 276.588 | -126.874 | 253.748 | 4.707 | 3 | 0.195 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 225.258 | 230.678 | -109.629 | 219.258 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 229.420 | 240.260 | -108.710 | 217.420 | 1.838 | 3 | 0.607 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 214.202 | 219.622 | -104.101 | 208.202 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 212.195 | 223.035 | -100.098 | 200.195 | 8.007 | 3 | 0.046 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 232.661 | 238.081 | -113.330 | 226.661 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 236.426 | 247.266 | -112.213 | 224.426 | 2.235 | 3 | 0.525 |
els | null | 3 | 275.165 | 280.585 | -134.582 | 269.165 | |||
els | random | 6 | 279.149 | 289.988 | -133.574 | 267.149 | 2.016 | 3 | 0.569 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 334.080 | 339.500 | -164.040 | 328.080 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 329.131 | 339.971 | -158.565 | 317.131 | 10.949 | 3 | 0.012 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 265.666 | 271.086 | -129.833 | 259.666 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 264.857 | 275.697 | -126.428 | 252.857 | 6.809 | 3 | 0.078 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 240.338 | 245.758 | -117.169 | 234.338 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 244.686 | 255.526 | -116.343 | 232.686 | 1.652 | 3 | 0.648 |
shs | null | 3 | 306.150 | 311.570 | -150.075 | 300.150 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 299.855 | 310.695 | -143.927 | 287.855 | 12.295 | 3 | 0.006 |
esteem | null | 3 | 143.795 | 149.215 | -68.897 | 137.795 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 147.764 | 158.604 | -67.882 | 135.764 | 2.031 | 3 | 0.566 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 230.260 | 235.680 | -112.130 | 224.260 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 235.815 | 246.655 | -111.907 | 223.815 | 0.445 | 3 | 0.931 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 245.920 | 251.340 | -119.960 | 239.920 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 248.425 | 259.265 | -118.213 | 236.425 | 3.494 | 3 | 0.322 |
mlq | null | 3 | 291.973 | 297.393 | -142.986 | 285.973 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 296.201 | 307.041 | -142.101 | 284.201 | 1.771 | 3 | 0.621 |
empower | null | 3 | 250.039 | 255.459 | -122.020 | 244.039 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 250.158 | 260.998 | -119.079 | 238.158 | 5.881 | 3 | 0.118 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 221.558 | 226.978 | -107.779 | 215.558 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 226.931 | 237.771 | -107.465 | 214.931 | 0.627 | 3 | 0.890 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 234.005 | 239.425 | -114.002 | 228.005 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 235.995 | 246.835 | -111.998 | 223.995 | 4.009 | 3 | 0.260 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 245.028 | 250.448 | -119.514 | 239.028 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 247.962 | 258.802 | -117.981 | 235.962 | 3.066 | 3 | 0.382 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 251.775 | 257.195 | -122.887 | 245.775 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 253.938 | 264.778 | -120.969 | 241.938 | 3.837 | 3 | 0.280 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 256.029 | 261.449 | -125.015 | 250.029 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 258.247 | 269.087 | -123.123 | 246.247 | 3.783 | 3 | 0.286 |
sss | null | 3 | 339.888 | 345.308 | -166.944 | 333.888 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 343.827 | 354.667 | -165.913 | 331.827 | 2.062 | 3 | 0.560 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 19 | 3.58 ± 1.21 | 20 | 3.50 ± 1.21 | 0.840 | 0.111 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 4 | 3.72 ± 1.06 | -0.204 | 2 | 4.50 ± 1.03 | -1.403 | 0.409 | -1.088 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 19 | 18.53 ± 2.76 | 20 | 18.30 ± 2.76 | 0.799 | 0.291 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 4 | 17.89 ± 1.60 | 0.812 | 2 | 18.48 ± 1.36 | -0.225 | 0.649 | -0.747 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 19 | 31.00 ± 4.47 | 20 | 31.55 ± 4.47 | 0.703 | -0.507 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 4 | 30.78 ± 2.46 | 0.204 | 2 | 33.28 ± 2.03 | -1.598 | 0.201 | -2.309 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 19 | 12.53 ± 2.02 | 20 | 12.15 ± 2.02 | 0.565 | 0.391 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 4 | 11.66 ± 1.53 | 0.902 | 2 | 12.18 ± 1.45 | -0.033 | 0.690 | -0.545 |
ras_goal | 1st | 19 | 18.11 ± 2.98 | 20 | 17.75 ± 2.98 | 0.712 | 0.376 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 4 | 17.79 ± 1.81 | 0.329 | 2 | 17.38 ± 1.58 | 0.396 | 0.775 | 0.443 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 19 | 13.42 ± 3.26 | 20 | 13.50 ± 3.26 | 0.940 | -0.079 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 4 | 13.45 ± 1.95 | -0.031 | 2 | 14.45 ± 1.69 | -0.958 | 0.526 | -1.007 |
ras_domination | 1st | 19 | 11.11 ± 2.43 | 20 | 9.45 ± 2.43 | 0.040 | 0.954 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 4 | 9.31 ± 2.43 | 1.033 | 2 | 10.99 ± 2.43 | -0.886 | 0.441 | -0.965 |
symptom | 1st | 19 | 28.53 ± 10.74 | 20 | 30.80 ± 10.74 | 0.513 | -0.909 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 4 | 25.69 ± 5.85 | 1.136 | 2 | 31.01 ± 4.78 | -0.085 | 0.247 | -2.130 |
slof_work | 1st | 19 | 24.05 ± 5.04 | 20 | 22.45 ± 5.04 | 0.327 | 1.166 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 4 | 22.35 ± 2.89 | 1.236 | 2 | 22.75 ± 2.44 | -0.219 | 0.862 | -0.289 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 19 | 27.84 ± 5.66 | 20 | 25.85 ± 5.66 | 0.279 | 1.036 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 4 | 24.50 ± 3.55 | 1.736 | 2 | 27.54 ± 3.14 | -0.880 | 0.306 | -1.579 |
satisfaction | 1st | 19 | 20.47 ± 6.98 | 20 | 22.70 ± 6.98 | 0.326 | -0.900 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 4 | 23.54 ± 4.47 | -1.240 | 2 | 24.11 ± 3.99 | -0.572 | 0.876 | -0.232 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 19 | 11.42 ± 3.42 | 20 | 12.25 ± 3.42 | 0.454 | -0.242 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 4 | 12.50 ± 4.04 | -0.315 | 2 | 16.50 ± 4.12 | -1.242 | 0.266 | -1.169 |
mhc_social | 1st | 19 | 15.68 ± 5.36 | 20 | 14.85 ± 5.36 | 0.630 | 0.199 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 4 | 18.96 ± 5.71 | -0.781 | 2 | 11.99 ± 5.76 | 0.682 | 0.180 | 1.662 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 19 | 22.63 ± 5.97 | 20 | 23.50 ± 5.97 | 0.652 | -0.160 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 4 | 24.32 ± 6.91 | -0.312 | 2 | 22.65 ± 7.03 | 0.156 | 0.784 | 0.308 |
resilisnce | 1st | 19 | 17.16 ± 4.87 | 20 | 17.30 ± 4.87 | 0.928 | -0.109 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 4 | 17.47 ± 2.77 | -0.238 | 2 | 14.21 ± 2.33 | 2.372 | 0.148 | 2.501 |
social_provision | 1st | 19 | 13.79 ± 3.22 | 20 | 13.70 ± 3.22 | 0.931 | 0.096 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 4 | 13.60 ± 1.89 | 0.204 | 2 | 14.77 ± 1.61 | -1.144 | 0.442 | -1.252 |
els_value_living | 1st | 19 | 17.26 ± 3.05 | 20 | 17.50 ± 3.05 | 0.810 | -0.773 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 4 | 17.02 ± 1.45 | 0.800 | 2 | 16.52 ± 1.05 | 3.215 | 0.631 | 1.642 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 19 | 12.58 ± 3.34 | 20 | 13.90 ± 3.34 | 0.225 | -0.988 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 4 | 13.35 ± 2.28 | -0.574 | 2 | 13.82 ± 2.09 | 0.062 | 0.806 | -0.352 |
els | 1st | 19 | 29.84 ± 5.72 | 20 | 31.40 ± 5.72 | 0.401 | -1.123 | ||
els | 2nd | 4 | 30.22 ± 3.15 | -0.272 | 2 | 30.14 ± 2.60 | 0.907 | 0.975 | 0.056 |
social_connect | 1st | 19 | 26.00 ± 10.59 | 20 | 26.60 ± 10.59 | 0.861 | -0.372 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 4 | 30.59 ± 5.27 | -2.846 | 2 | 31.53 ± 3.99 | -3.054 | 0.810 | -0.579 |
shs_agency | 1st | 19 | 14.42 ± 4.82 | 20 | 14.50 ± 4.82 | 0.959 | -0.061 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 4 | 16.96 ± 2.74 | -1.967 | 2 | 14.75 ± 2.31 | -0.195 | 0.315 | 1.710 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 19 | 16.63 ± 3.69 | 20 | 17.20 ± 3.69 | 0.633 | -0.410 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 4 | 17.65 ± 2.43 | -0.733 | 2 | 17.17 ± 2.20 | 0.024 | 0.812 | 0.347 |
shs | 1st | 19 | 31.05 ± 7.87 | 20 | 31.70 ± 7.87 | 0.799 | -0.667 | ||
shs | 2nd | 4 | 34.56 ± 3.81 | -3.616 | 2 | 31.30 ± 2.81 | 0.408 | 0.243 | 3.357 |
esteem | 1st | 19 | 12.84 ± 1.15 | 20 | 12.40 ± 1.15 | 0.235 | 0.386 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 4 | 13.00 ± 1.35 | -0.138 | 2 | 12.50 ± 1.38 | -0.087 | 0.676 | 0.436 |
mlq_search | 1st | 19 | 15.79 ± 3.21 | 20 | 15.25 ± 3.21 | 0.603 | 0.320 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 4 | 16.03 ± 2.58 | -0.142 | 2 | 15.09 ± 2.48 | 0.093 | 0.678 | 0.555 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 19 | 14.79 ± 3.95 | 20 | 13.05 ± 3.95 | 0.177 | 1.441 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 4 | 14.65 ± 2.36 | 0.113 | 2 | 11.87 ± 2.05 | 0.976 | 0.159 | 2.304 |
mlq | 1st | 19 | 30.58 ± 6.43 | 20 | 28.30 ± 6.43 | 0.276 | 0.825 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 4 | 30.79 ± 4.56 | -0.078 | 2 | 27.17 ± 4.24 | 0.411 | 0.358 | 1.314 |
empower | 1st | 19 | 20.74 ± 4.29 | 20 | 19.80 ± 4.29 | 0.500 | 1.178 | ||
empower | 2nd | 4 | 20.28 ± 2.21 | 0.574 | 2 | 17.91 ± 1.73 | 2.376 | 0.161 | 2.980 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 19 | 15.16 ± 2.78 | 20 | 15.00 ± 2.78 | 0.860 | 0.067 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 4 | 14.33 ± 3.11 | 0.350 | 2 | 15.58 ± 3.16 | -0.245 | 0.652 | -0.527 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 19 | 12.11 ± 3.14 | 20 | 10.30 ± 3.14 | 0.080 | 0.854 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 4 | 11.06 ± 3.01 | 0.496 | 2 | 9.66 ± 2.99 | 0.301 | 0.602 | 0.659 |
sss_affective | 1st | 19 | 9.84 ± 4.37 | 20 | 9.15 ± 4.37 | 0.624 | 1.176 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 4 | 9.64 ± 2.14 | 0.335 | 2 | 10.05 ± 1.59 | -1.524 | 0.797 | -0.683 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 19 | 10.32 ± 4.52 | 20 | 8.95 ± 4.52 | 0.352 | 1.761 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 4 | 9.64 ± 2.29 | 0.875 | 2 | 9.82 ± 1.77 | -1.120 | 0.915 | -0.234 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 19 | 7.58 ± 4.15 | 20 | 8.30 ± 4.15 | 0.591 | -0.349 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 4 | 10.05 ± 3.22 | -1.200 | 2 | 7.98 ± 3.07 | 0.154 | 0.462 | 1.004 |
sss | 1st | 19 | 27.74 ± 12.19 | 20 | 26.40 ± 12.19 | 0.734 | 0.605 | ||
sss | 2nd | 4 | 28.98 ± 6.24 | -0.561 | 2 | 28.46 ± 4.86 | -0.932 | 0.912 | 0.234 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(38.60) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.71)
2st
t(10.08) = 0.86, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.78)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(37.33) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.56)
2st
t(15.76) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-2.08 to 3.24)
ras_confidence
1st
t(37.24) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.45)
2st
t(19.61) = 1.32, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -2.31, 95% CI (-1.45 to 6.45)
ras_willingness
1st
t(38.01) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.94)
2st
t(9.82) = 0.41, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.38)
ras_goal
1st
t(37.42) = -0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.58)
2st
t(13.55) = -0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.51 to 2.68)
ras_reliance
1st
t(37.39) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.19)
2st
t(14.20) = 0.65, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.30)
ras_domination
1st
t(39.46) = -2.13, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.23 to -0.08)
2st
t(12.85) = 0.80, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-2.88 to 6.23)
symptom
1st
t(37.22) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-4.70 to 9.24)
2st
t(20.78) = 1.19, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -2.13, 95% CI (-3.97 to 14.62)
slof_work
1st
t(37.31) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-4.87 to 1.67)
2st
t(16.55) = 0.18, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-4.36 to 5.15)
slof_relationship
1st
t(37.49) = -1.10, p = 0.279, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-5.66 to 1.68)
2st
t(12.51) = 1.07, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -1.58, 95% CI (-3.13 to 9.21)
satisfaction
1st
t(37.53) = 1.00, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-2.30 to 6.76)
2st
t(11.98) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-7.27 to 8.42)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(41.00) = 0.76, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.38 to 3.04)
2st
t(41.00) = 1.13, p = 0.266, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-3.16 to 11.16)
mhc_social
1st
t(39.95) = -0.49, p = 0.630, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.30 to 2.63)
2st
t(16.23) = -1.40, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 1.66, 95% CI (-17.50 to 3.56)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(40.77) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.99 to 4.73)
2st
t(30.46) = -0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-14.02 to 10.68)
resilisnce
1st
t(37.30) = 0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-3.02 to 3.30)
2st
t(16.97) = -1.51, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 2.50, 95% CI (-7.80 to 1.28)
social_provision
1st
t(37.35) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.00)
2st
t(15.20) = 0.79, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (-1.99 to 4.32)
els_value_living
1st
t(37.04) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.22)
2st
t(40.90) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.59)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(37.69) = 1.23, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (-0.85 to 3.49)
2st
t(10.74) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-3.64 to 4.58)
els
1st
t(37.24) = 0.85, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.27)
2st
t(19.58) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.13 to 4.98)
social_connect
1st
t(37.09) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-6.27 to 7.47)
2st
t(34.80) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-6.90 to 8.77)
shs_agency
1st
t(37.30) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-3.05 to 3.20)
2st
t(16.93) = -1.04, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 1.71, 95% CI (-6.71 to 2.29)
shs_pathway
1st
t(37.61) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.96)
2st
t(11.30) = -0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.82 to 3.85)
shs
1st
t(37.06) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to 5.75)
2st
t(39.28) = -1.18, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 3.36, 95% CI (-8.82 to 2.30)
esteem
1st
t(41.00) = -1.20, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.30)
2st
t(41.00) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.90)
mlq_search
1st
t(38.24) = -0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.54)
2st
t(9.72) = -0.43, p = 0.678, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.81 to 3.94)
mlq_presence
1st
t(37.39) = -1.38, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.82)
2st
t(14.19) = -1.49, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 2.30, 95% CI (-6.78 to 1.22)
mlq
1st
t(37.80) = -1.11, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-6.45 to 1.89)
2st
t(10.25) = -0.96, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 1.31, 95% CI (-11.99 to 4.74)
empower
1st
t(37.14) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.85)
2st
t(28.44) = -1.44, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 2.98, 95% CI (-5.74 to 1.00)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(40.41) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.64)
2st
t(21.85) = 0.46, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-4.40 to 6.89)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(39.16) = -1.80, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.84 to 0.23)
2st
t(11.56) = -0.54, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.08 to 4.29)
sss_affective
1st
t(37.07) = -0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.53 to 2.14)
2st
t(37.78) = 0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.54)
sss_behavior
1st
t(37.12) = -0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 1.76, 95% CI (-4.30 to 1.57)
2st
t(31.10) = 0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.28 to 3.64)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(38.11) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.41)
2st
t(9.73) = -0.77, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-8.12 to 3.98)
sss
1st
t(37.13) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-9.25 to 6.57)
2st
t(29.21) = -0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-10.01 to 8.98)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(6.12) = 1.40, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(4.32) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.28)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(4.23) = 1.60, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -1.60, 95% CI (-1.22 to 4.68)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(5.13) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(4.42) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.16)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(4.38) = 0.96, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.63)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(8.42) = 0.89, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-2.40 to 5.47)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(4.21) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-6.60 to 7.03)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(4.30) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-3.42 to 4.02)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(4.49) = 0.88, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-3.44 to 6.82)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(4.54) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-5.16 to 7.99)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(35.06) = 1.41, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.86 to 10.36)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(10.76) = -0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-11.93 to 6.21)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(20.67) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-11.43 to 9.74)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(4.28) = -2.37, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 2.37, 95% CI (-6.62 to 0.44)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(4.34) = 1.14, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.58)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(4.04) = -3.21, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 3.22, 95% CI (-1.83 to -0.14)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(4.72) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.59 to 3.43)
els
1st vs 2st
t(4.23) = -0.91, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.52)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(4.09) = 3.05, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -3.05, 95% CI (0.48 to 9.37)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(4.29) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.25 to 3.75)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(4.62) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.70 to 3.63)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(4.06) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-3.08 to 2.29)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(35.06) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.15)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(5.49) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.38 to 4.07)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(4.38) = -0.97, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-4.42 to 2.07)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(4.86) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-8.32 to 6.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(4.13) = -2.37, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 2.38, 95% CI (-4.07 to 0.29)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(14.51) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-4.27 to 5.43)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(7.45) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.55 to 4.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(4.07) = 1.52, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -1.52, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.52)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(4.11) = 1.12, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(5.28) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.55 to 4.92)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(4.12) = 0.93, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-4.01 to 8.13)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(5.77) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(4.28) = -1.15, p = 0.623, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.86)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(4.20) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.31 to 1.87)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(4.97) = -1.27, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-2.63 to 0.89)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(4.36) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.49)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(4.33) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.93)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(7.53) = -1.47, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-4.63 to 1.05)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(4.18) = -1.60, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-7.67 to 1.99)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(4.26) = -1.75, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-4.34 to 0.94)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(4.42) = -2.45, p = 0.129, Cohen d = 1.74, 95% CI (-6.98 to 0.31)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(4.46) = 1.75, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.60 to 7.74)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(25.31) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-3.38 to 5.54)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(9.20) = 1.12, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-3.29 to 9.84)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(15.61) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-6.01 to 9.40)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(4.25) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.81)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(4.29) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.98 to 1.60)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(4.03) = -1.13, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.35)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(4.62) = 0.81, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(4.20) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.05)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(4.08) = 4.02, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -2.85, 95% CI (1.45 to 7.74)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(4.25) = 2.78, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -1.97, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.03)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(4.54) = 1.03, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.63)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(4.05) = 5.11, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -3.62, 95% CI (1.61 to 5.41)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(25.31) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.65)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(5.26) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.79 to 3.26)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(4.33) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.44 to 2.17)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(4.74) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-4.90 to 5.33)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(4.11) = -0.81, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.09)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(11.72) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.35 to 2.70)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(6.80) = -0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-4.59 to 2.49)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(4.06) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.95)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(4.10) = -1.24, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.83)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(5.09) = 1.69, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -1.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 6.22)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(4.11) = 0.79, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-3.06 to 5.53)